Problem of Evil (again): Logic [intro]

[MPat]

For exceptions that prove the rule, turn on your tv tonight.

Let’s recheck evidence.

Your thesis was that:

the majority of people were relatively good and did not want to murder, rape and pillage

That is a restatement of thesis of “Constructor” that consists of two propositions: 1) “The number of ‘psychopaths and sociopaths’ is small.”, 2) “People who are not ‘psychopaths and sociopaths’ do not do evil deeds.” (I have extracted those propositions, but accuracy of such extraction has not been challenged).

First, you and “Constructor” have claimed that this thesis does not need evidence, because it is supposed to be “common knowledge”. That was silly for several reasons. First, the claim that common knowledge does not require evidence destroys the case for atheism. Second, it is not true that your thesis is so widely accepted. See, for example, YouGov report (Young people are the most pessimistic about human nature | YouGov): “Overall most people (52%) say humans are cooperative while a third (32%) say they are self-serving,”. Third, you admitted people (including you) have a motive to be biased towards believing your thesis: it is much more pleasant. That significantly decreases the value of majority believing such things.

Second, you (and not just you) have found papers by psychologists that show that at least a significant minority of people have traits that tend lead to pretty obviously evil deeds, should an opportunity arise. You dismissed that evidence as “hard to believe”.

Third, now you point to “exceptions that confirm the rule” - perhaps the fact that so many people started looting when they saw an opportunity. Perhaps with idea that they did not do so when they had no opportunity.

Fourth, you have claimed that “If everyone raped and murdered and took whatever they wanted then society wouldn’d just collapse - it wouldn’t have started in the first place.”. Which again only shows that people do not do evil when they have no opportunity.

Fifth, I have asked you to make a more exhaustive list of evil deeds. It looks like you did not do so.

On the whole, I’d say that evidence clearly does not support your thesis.

Also, let’s look at that “triad”: “murder, rape and pillage”.

What is special about it?

That opportunities for them are very rare. That all three have high requirements: strength, weapons, skill to use those weapons, some courage or recklessness (cowardice rules them out) etc.

And those specific evil deeds are more likely for specific social groups (poor relatively uneducated people, people in the military).

To cite John C. Wright (http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/04/quote-of-the-day-8/):

“In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.” — Anatole France

It also forbids rich and poor alike to bribe politicians, commit securities fraud, fix horse races, maintain unsafe workplaces, and engage in human trafficking. — Bob the Ape

Which is why I asked you for a more exhaustive list of evil deeds.

 

[Freddy]

Which is why I asked you for a more exhaustive list of evil deeds.

And as I said, you can watch them on TV or read about them in the newspapers. They are news because they are not common events. Three guys were stabbed to death in the UK yesterday. It made news in Australia because it’s not normal. People don’t usually go around killing and looting.

And the fact that under exceptional circumstances a lot of us would do wrong doesn’t change that.

I’m really not prepared to expend too much effort trying to prove to you that the majority of people generally follow the rules of society. The original point being that societies don’t form unless the majority of people agree on certain moral standards.

 

[o_mlly]

You won’t find any of this in history books.

Better yet, you won’t find any of this anywhere.

A philosophy of human nature that claims fear as the primary motivating force for repressing oppressive behaviors is just false. That such a mind set could exists as an abnormality may be true. And when true, we pity those whose lives are lived in fear of violence and hope that repressing their own tendencies to violence will somehow keep them safer. It is at best the mentality of an adolescent and a life hardly worth living.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You won’t find any of this in history books.

Better yet, you won’t find any of this anywhere.

A philosophy of human nature that claims fear as the primary motivating force for repressing oppressive behaviors is just false. That such a mind set could exists as an abnormality may be true. And when true, we pity those whose lives are lived in fear of violence and hope that repressing their own tendencies to violence will somehow keep them safer. It is at best the mentality of an adolescent and a life hardly worth living.

I’m afraid that you haven’t understood the argument. It’s the better angels of our nature that allowed us to form societies. Not fear. It’s the characteristics that prompt us to share and to help. These have evolved because they are beneficial to us. Where did you get the idea that fear is the prime motivator for reciprocal altruism?

And not that what you said above had anything at all to do with what I posted, I would agree that fear of something (I dunno…hell, for example) is a very bad method of repressing immoral behaviour.

 

[o_mlly]

It’s the characteristics that prompt us to share and to help.

We’re looking for your logical explanation of your inhibition to do evil. You left out, or do not have, an important middle term. You begin with a motive of self-interest and conclude to a motive of altruism. ? The two are opposites. To wit:

Freddy:

I don’t want to be raped therefore rape is bad. I can’t see how there could be an argument against this.

If you were a psychopath and had no capacity for empathy, yes.

How do you get from self-interest, i.e… the fear of being raped, to a “reciprocal altruism”? You do realize the difference between selfishness and selflessness allows no overlaps, don’t you?

It’s the better angels of our nature that allowed us to form societies.

And, what exactly do you refer to as the “better angels of our nature”? It’s all quite murky. Please put a chain of logic together that explains your motivation to do no evil.

 

[jochoa]

Thoughts?

The formula is mistaken. Conclusion (6) should be God creates heaven, a place where God eliminated evil, as well as a means for those created on earth to get to Heaven.
Therefore, Conclusion (7) God does exist.

 

[Neithan]

We could expand existence to all feasible worlds. If a paradise with no evil is a feasible world (an interesting question in itself) then the formula could be, evil exists in at least one feasible world. So then, why does God permit evil in one feasible world and not another?

 

[jochoa]

So then, why does God permit evil in one feasible world and not another?

All-loving means God loves all, including those that choose to be/do evil.
The act of love towards a person who chooses evil is to permit the person to exist outside of your livelihood, while encouraging repentance and reconciliation.
Therefore, God permits evil in one world and not another because God respects a person’s decision to be/do evil, and God loves the person, even though s/he chose separation from God, by allowing others to choose goodness amidst the evil.

 

[MPat]

I’m really not prepared to expend too much effort trying to prove to you that the majority of people generally follow the rules of society. The original point being that societies don’t form unless the majority of people agree on certain moral standards.

So, the threshold is the existence of society?

Good, in that case you have proclaimed that evil is insignificant, since societies (and ecosystems) can form and survive for a long time. And therefore, the Problem of Evil is solved.

So, we’re done here.

Or would you like to take some move back…?

And as I said, you can watch them on TV or read about them in the newspapers. They are news because they are not common events. Three guys were stabbed to death in the UK yesterday. It made news in Australia because it’s not normal. People don’t usually go around killing and looting.

And the fact that under exceptional circumstances a lot of us would do wrong doesn’t change that.

Once again, the thesis of “Constructor” that you took to defend consists of two propositions: 1) “The number of ‘psychopaths and sociopaths’ is small.”, 2) “People who are not ‘psychopaths and sociopaths’ do not do evil deeds.”.

If “under exceptional circumstances a lot of us would do wrong”, then at least one of those propositions is false.

I get an impression that you keep trying to defend a much weaker thesis. Is that an instance of “Motte and Bailey Doctrines” (with something like “For whatever reasons people usually do not do so much evil that society would just cease to exist.” as “Motte” and thesis of “Constructor” as “Bailey”), or did you fail to notice how extreme that thesis of “Constructor” really was?

And, by the way:

The original point being that societies don’t form unless the majority of people agree on certain moral standards.

Do you really want to prove that societies “form” - presumably, by some mythical “social contract”…? And that they cease to exist when “social contract breaks down”…?

 

[Abrosz]

All-loving means God loves all, including those that choose to be/do evil.

All-loving would mean to give a personal fair warning before one makes the fatal mistake. Not leave it to someone else.

Therefore, God permits evil in one world and not another because God respects a person’s decision to be/do evil…

Why??? If we, humans would foresee an upcoming evil deed, and would be powerful enough to “will” that evil deed away, and would not do it… we would be considered to be just as evil as the actual perpetrator.

 

[jochoa]

All-loving would mean to give a personal fair warning before one makes the fatal mistake. Not leave it to someone else.

Deeper theology reveals God accounts for this point.

Why??? If we, humans would foresee an upcoming evil deed, and would be powerful enough to “will” that evil deed away, and would not do it… we would be considered to be just as evil as the actual perpetrator.

Not quite.
We, humans, foresee the upcoming evil of the killing of a human in the womb when a patient enters an abortion clinic, yet if we forcefully use our will to stop the doctor from doing evil, we would be considered evil. Rather, at a point, goodness will continue to offer education and service without forceful interference, so as to help those desiring/promoting evil to change their will.

 

[Abrosz]

Deeper theology reveals God accounts for this point.

This forum is philosophy, not theology.

We, humans, foresee the upcoming evil of the killing of a human in the womb when a patient enters an abortion clinic…

That is again just an opinion. The question is the definition of a human being. As long as you do not accept the qualitative differences between DNA, zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus and newborn baby, we are talking past each other. And I am sorry about it.

Moreover, if you wish to reduce the number of abortions - preferably all the way to NO abortion at all (which is what I would like to see!), BUT do not support the use of preventive birth control methods, we have no common ground to even try to come to an agreement.

Let me add something. I have never heard of any woman who WANTED to have an abortion. So there is no one who is PRO-abortion. Pro choice is NOT pro-abortion.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It’s the characteristics that prompt us to share and to help.

We’re looking for your logical explanation of your inhibition to do evil. You left out, or do not have, an important middle term. You begin with a motive of self-interest and conclude to a motive of altruism.

We don’t begin with self interest. You could do a profit and loss calculation and work out if it’s more beneficial to share food as opposed to not and then operate depending on the outcome. And that does happen, but sharing is beneficial and those with the characteristics for doing so will automatically form more stable groups than those who don’t.

Animals don’t have an internal debate on the pros and conns of sharing but some do share because they are the ones that have survived in a group environment. Bats are well know for this. They will share food with the young of other bats if their mother wasn’t succesfull in finding food. They don’t do this expecting the mother to reciprocate. It’s natural. But if the mother doesn’t share her food when she is succesfull and others aren’t then her babies will go hungry next time.

So you have a succesfull group who share and those that don’t reciprocate are excluded. This is how societies form. People help each other and that’s obviously beneficial. So reciprocal altruism becomes the norm. It’s built in to the group.

So this has nothing to do with a fear of being robbed or assaulted. You don’t help someone because you’re afraid of him. But empathy allows us to realise that being assaulted is just as traumatic for others as it is for us. So that allows us to determine if something is wrong or not. So if you assault someone, you know it’s wrong because you know you’d be traumatised if you were assaulted.

These are two entirely separate aspects. Don’t confuse them. Although as I said previously, this is not going to be acceptable to you in any case because these features of any given society were formed hundreds of thousands of years ago when groups first began to form as far as humans are concerned. And goes back countless millions for many other creatures.

 

[Freddy]

Do you really want to prove that societies “form” - presumably, by some mythical “social contract”…? And that they cease to exist when “social contract breaks down”…?

No, I don’t. It’s not required.

 

[jochoa]

jochoa:

Deeper theology reveals God accounts for this point.

This forum is philosophy, not theology.

Though we are discussing the all-loving God, aka theology, deeper analysis of being all-loving accounts for this point as well.

As long as you do not accept the qualitative differences between DNA, zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus and newborn baby, we are talking past each other. And I am sorry about it.

Do you agree that from zygote to natural death we have the same DNA?

Moreover, if you wish to reduce the number of abortions - preferably all the way to NO abortion at all (which is what I would like to see!), BUT do not support the use of preventive birth control methods, we have no common ground to even try to come to an agreement.

We have common ground, I support the use of natural preventive birth control methods, such as abstinence and Natural Family Planning.

Let me add something. I have never heard of any woman who WANTED to have an abortion. So there is no one who is PRO-abortion. Pro choice is NOT pro-abortion.

And the reason no woman ever wants to have an abortion and why you you would prefer to see NO abortion at all is because it is obviously wrong, hence the evil classification.

Try not to buy into the word play, it will lead you to support and do evil things.

 

[Freddy]

Try not to buy into the word play, it will lead you to support and do evil things.

Abrosz is pretty much on the same page as I am. We both want to see the number of abortions decrease. Significantly. But insinuating that playing word games will lead us astray in some way is quite insulting.

I think that you need to accept that people have different views on this matter and have reached those views over a long period of thought and have listened to arguments from both sides. And those two sides are pro life and pro choice. That is not word play. That is an accurate representation of the position of very many people. Which means exactly what it says. That the choice to have an abortion is to be left to the woman and to no-one else.

So nobody is ‘buying in’ to anything. The positions that those who class themsleves as pro choice are honestly held positions and they are not something to be treated as if it’s a bumper sticker slogan glibly and naiively tossed about to score debating points.

 

[jochoa]

Are you pro-choice in the following scenario?
A person recognizes a “doctor” is about to kill a human, aged 8 months pre-birth, when a patient enters an abortion procedure. The person chooses to forcefully prevent the killing.

Also, why do you want to see abortions decrease significantly?

 

[Freddy]

Also, why do you want to see abortions decrease significantly?

It’s a significant choice for all women. I’d prefer it if they didn’t have to have to make that choice. I’d prefer it if contraception was more effective and available to all.

Wouldn’t it be great if you had to take a pill to get pregnant as opposed to taking one to try to prevent it…

 

[jochoa]

How about the former question: are you pro-choice for a person choosing to forcefully stop an abortion?

It’s a significant choice for all women.

And why do you say it is a significant decision for women? I say it is a significant decision because they know they have a baby in their womb, that they know will die, which they know would be bad.

Wouldn’t it be great if you had to take a pill to get pregnant as opposed to taking one to try to prevent it…

There is…this pill you speak of is called the seed of a man, aka sperm. The method of reception is called sexual intercourse. And it is great when it is taken as a means to get pregnant in a covenantal marriage, as opposed to taking it mindlessly for pleasure outside of marriage.

 

[Freddy]

How about the former question: are you pro-choice for a person choosing to forcefully stop an abortion?

Freddy:

It’s a significant choice for all women.

And why do you say it is a significant decision for women? I say it is a significant decision because they know they have a baby in their womb, that they know will die, which they know would be bad.

Wouldn’t it be great if you had to take a pill to get pregnant as opposed to taking one to try to prevent it…

There is…this pill you speak of is called the seed of a man, aka sperm. The method of reception is called sexual intercourse. And it is great when it is taken as a means to get pregnant in a covenantal marriage, as opposed to taking it mindlessly for pleasure outside of marriage.

I’m pro choice as far as the woman is concerned. Period.

And it’s obviously a huge decision for a woman. Surely it needs no explanation.

And gee, yeah I forgot about abstinence. That’ll work every time you make that decision. But we need to solve the problem for all those times when it wasn’t taken as an option. I know you’ll find this difficult to believe but almost everyone has sex simply because it feels great. Maybe if it had been designed differently…